So tell me....

[FisherHawk]

(Same goes for Lloyd - but I note it isn't the Bomber supporters whinging here)

I don't see any whinging going on in here. What the hell would the Bombers supporters have to whinge about anyway? Sewell was knocked unconscious by Lloyd, in a clear intentional hit to the head with more force than Hall on Staker, which sent him of for the rest of the game. That’s the way Lloyd always plays and has been dealt with appropriately. I think the fact that Sewell had a fractured eye socket and cheek bone proved contact was high.

The Goddard and Franklin bumps were both good bumps that should remain part of the game. Play on.

 

[PottSie2]

I don't see any whinging going on in here. What the hell would the Bombers supporters have to whinge about anyway? Sewell was knocked unconscious by Lloyd, in a clear intentional hit to the head with more force than Hall on Staker, which sent him of for the rest of the game. That’s the way Lloyd always plays and has been dealt with appropriately. I think the fact that Sewell had a fractured eye socket and cheek bone proved contact was high.

The Goddard and Franklin bumps were both good bumps that should remain part of the game. Play on.

Agreed. Grant Thomas mentioned last night that Goddard's bump was millimetres away from getting him suspended, and to me, that highlights the ludicrous law in effect at the moment. Both Buddy's and Goddard's bumps were perfect. 0 weeks for either and game on.

 

[iGNITER]

Thomas just got up tough as nails!

 

[SirJimi05]

crap it's not. take your free buddy whining and sod off to football la la land and let the big boys contest the finals series.
the fact is that luke darcy was right -

a few mm and goddard is off for two weeks. buddy had those mm, lloyd had a foot or so. BJ didn't and had a perfectly executed bump.

Sums it up perfectly but you can't tell Hawks supporters this. They are under the impression that a dodgy photo must be defining proof of head high contact and that the actual footage of the incident is irrelevent. Just look at the amount of times different posters, from all different club, have said to Hawks supporters that they have seen the actual footage and the replays, and that no head high contact was made, and then look at the replies from Hawks supporters. They simply refuse to reply or acknowledge these posts. They prefer to stick to the 'inconclusive' line they are sprouting because they know they can then compare it to Buddy.....Oh but wait this isn't about Buddy but they also won't tell us who the other person is that they were comparing the incident to when they stated that the rules changed this week compared to last week.

I don't see any whinging going on in here. What the hell would the Bombers supporters have to whinge about anyway?

Read the OP and read between the lines like everybody that has half a brain did. An yes you are right, Essendon supporter have nothing to whinge abiout. We cop our fair wack and move on.

The Goddard and Franklin bumps were both good bumps that should remain part of the game. Play on.

No they weren't they were different. Buddy hit Cousins in the head so had to be suspended under current rules.

Goddard made no contact at all to the head so had no case to answer.

 

[SirJimi05]

Agreed. Grant Thomas mentioned last night that Goddard's bump was millimetres away from getting him suspended, and to me, that highlights the ludicrous law in effect at the moment. Both Buddy's and Goddard's bumps were perfect. 0 weeks for either and game on.

How can Buddy's bump be perfect when he clearly got Cousins in the head.

Goddard's was perfect because he managed to avoid his head by mere mm's.

Ridiculous rule but the bumps were different and the MRP got both right, under the current laws of the game.

 

[ShinSplints]

Can someone tell me why DAWSON was cited for 2 weeks when collingwood did it at least 3 times probably more and that was cool anyone

No other team gets done as badly as the saints NO ONE.

baker 7 weeks need i remind you.

 

[Bollox]

Useless, meaningless thread - photos prove absolutely nothing at all...

Correct.
In fact if u take a still of just about ANY decent marking contest you can take your choice of a number of possible technical free kicks...same for stills of things like bumps.



Remember this contest for the ball a cpl of yrs ago ?

..should Mattner have got 4 weeks for it based on the other guy looking like the toxic avenger in a photo ?...or should it have remained what it actually was ?

 

[DaBeast]

Who cares he hit Dale Thomas.

 

[clobba]

Useless, meaningless thread - photos prove absolutely nothing at all.

The video proves that Franklins shoulder got Cousins flush on the head (that's why he was KO'd). Whether he should have been suspended is another debate (already had by all of us on other threads). But the fact is, its the VIDEO that proved the high hit to the head, not a photo.

(Same goes for Lloyd - but I note it isn't the Bomber supporters whinging here)

Whereas the video shows that Goddards hit on Thomas was on the body, not on the head. It was a fair hit, a good hit. No Pies supporter at the ground whinged and carried on at the time (or none around me), and none that I know of have whinged or carried on about it since - because it was obvious, even to us, it was a fair hit. And thats exactly what the VIDEO shows.

Thomas went off, got his breath back, came back on, played OK. There is simply no issue here - except the AFL uses VIDEOS to judge these things, not still photos that prove absolutely nothing - it just shows Thomas having his head jerked forward after contact - which the video proves was on his body!

Close thread.

Well said and I agree, though I was worried about the MRP even though there was no head contact as who knows what they will decide sometimes

 

[Schmucta]

So tell me....

Running out of tissues yet??

Laughable thread

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Wow, there's some incredible bias coming through here (so I'll just add mine ). Seeing as these incidents are brought up, here's a couple of thoughts.

1. Goddard made 'incidental' contact to the head, but most of the contact was to the body. He 'lined him up' from 4-5m away, but was tucked and executed a well-timed and co-ordinated bump.

MY VERDICT: Play on. REPORT: Reckless (caused impact), High Contact, Low Impact. Which results in 2 weeks before adjustments.

The penalty is too high for the action in this case. Under the current 'gradings' there is nothing that Goddard should be charged for.

2. Franklin made 'incidental' contact to Cousins head, with most of the contact to the body. Cousins attempted to 'step' Franklin's, but fumbled/slipped and veered into Franklin. Franklin was low and tucked, and Cousins essentially ran into him, leaning forward at the last moment as he tried to change direction.

MY VERDICT: Play on. REPORT: Negligent, High Contact, Medium Impact (Cousins concussed for a minute or so). Which results in 2 weeks before adjustments.

3. Lloyd. Attacked the contest of the square, Sewell had his head down to collect the ball, Lloyd turned and applied a forceful hip and shoulder to Sewell's face.

MY VERDICT: 4+ Weeks. REPORT: Intentional, High Contact, High Impact (Broken Jaw and eye-socket). I think that's actually 6 weeks.

================

Goddard and Franklin shouldn't have gone - and if the MRP treat all incidents like that in future then I'll be happy (it just adds another line to the Anti-Hawthorn conspiracy).

If you cause the contact to be high, either by hitting a player with his head allready down, or by leaving the ground - you are at fault. If the player you hit causes the hit to be high (either by ducking, losing footing, diving at your knee, etc) - then the incident should be treated as if it was body contact (which invariably means nothing).

The MRP got it wrong with Franklin, I think 99% of people understand that.

They pretty much got it right with Lloyd.

They got it right with Goddard.

They pretty much got it right with Judd (personally, worse than Lloyd due to intent).

 

[Schmucta]

Wow, there's some incredible bias coming through here (so I'll just add mine ). Seeing as these incidents are brought up, here's a couple of thoughts.

1. Goddard made 'incidental' contact to the head, but most of the contact was to the body. He 'lined him up' from 4-5m away, but was tucked and executed a well-timed and co-ordinated bump.

MY VERDICT: Play on. REPORT: Reckless (caused impact), High Contact, Low Impact. Which results in 2 weeks before adjustments.

The penalty is too high for the action in this case. Under the current 'gradings' there is nothing that Goddard should be charged for.

2. Franklin made 'incidental' contact to Cousins head, with most of the contact to the body. Cousins attempted to 'step' Franklin's, but fumbled/slipped and veered into Franklin. Franklin was low and tucked, and Cousins essentially ran into him, leaning forward at the last moment as he tried to change direction.

MY VERDICT: Play on. REPORT: Negligent, High Contact, Medium Impact (Cousins concussed for a minute or so). Which results in 2 weeks before adjustments.

3. Lloyd. Attacked the contest of the square, Sewell had his head down to collect the ball, Lloyd turned and applied a forceful hip and shoulder to Sewell's face.

MY VERDICT: 4+ Weeks. REPORT: Intentional, High Contact, High Impact (Broken Jaw and eye-socket). I think that's actually 6 weeks.

================

Goddard and Franklin shouldn't have gone - and if the MRP treat all incidents like that in future then I'll be happy (it just adds another line to the Anti-Hawthorn conspiracy).

If you cause the contact to be high, either by hitting a player with his head allready down, or by leaving the ground - you are at fault. If the player you hit causes the hit to be high (either by ducking, losing footing, diving at your knee, etc) - then the incident should be treated as if it was body contact (which invariably means nothing).

The MRP got it wrong with Franklin, I think 99% of people understand that.

They pretty much got it right with Lloyd.

They got it right with Goddard.

They pretty much got it right with Judd (personally, worse than Lloyd due to intent).

Hmmmmm

I notice how in your examples you take due note of the other players involved and what they were doing in the contest.....all except in Goddards case....so much so, that the other player is not even named...

Oh hang on thats right, because in the other two instances by your recollections the Hawks player was wronged...

Hmmmmmm

Time to take those Hawthorn coloured glasses off maybe?

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Cousins stepped Franklin and fell into contact with Franklin. Cousins caused contact.
Sewell was raising his head when Lloyd hit him. Lloyd caused contact.

IMO Thomas didn't even see Goddard - he was still in the act of receiving the ball when he was hit (he had possession and took maybe 1 step). In terms of his contribution to the hit, it was much closer to the Sewell side (0-10%) than the Cousins (70-80%).

Or do you think Franklin should have been suspended, or Lloyd should have got off?

The only reason Franklin was suspended was due to Cousins concussion. Even then he was up and wanting to play on by the next bounce.

I thought the bump was dead after Franklin's penalty. Goddard's 'escape' makes me think the bump is still in trouble, but not dead yet - there's just an issue with regards to consistency of application.

 

[Schmucta]

Cousins stepped Franklin and fell into contact with Franklin. Cousins caused contact.
Sewell was raising his head when Lloyd hit him. Lloyd caused contact.

IMO Thomas didn't even see Goddard - he was still in the act of receiving the ball when he was hit (he had possession and took maybe 1 step). In terms of his contribution to the hit, it was much closer to the Sewell side (0-10%) than the Cousins (70-80%).

Or do you think Franklin should have been suspended, or Lloyd should have got off?

The only reason Franklin was suspended was due to Cousins concussion. Even then he was up and wanting to play on by the next bounce.

I thought the bump was dead after Franklin's penalty. Goddard's 'escape' makes me think the bump is still in trouble, but not dead yet - there's just an issue with regards to consistency of application.

Sorry didn't read past this point, no need too, you clearly are not in the argument as an unbiased football follower...

 

[Zvim]

I didn't feel Buddy's was reportable so will remain consistent with my view, unlike the MRP or Tribunal who is so intentionally inconsistent they refuse to use a precedence system.

 

[SirJimi05]

Sorry didn't read past this point, no need too, you clearly are not in the argument as an unbiased football follower...

I just want one Hawks supporter to watch a replay of the game, look at the incident closely, and view the slow motion replays they showed, and then come and comment. I know they won't because then they will have no choice but to acknowledge that no contact was made to the head and therefore will have to stop sooking/comparing this to Buddy. They prefer to keep their heads well and truelly buried in the sand by relying one one dodgy photo that they OP delibirately chose to try and make his point. Lame.

 

[SirJimi05]

I didn't feel Buddy's was reportable so will remain consistent with my view, unlike the MRP or Tribunal who is so intentionally inconsistent they refuse to use a precedence system.

Franklin's bump was clearly reportable under the current interpretation of the rules.

The rule sucks big time and needs to be changed.

 

[theyellowsash]

 

[clobba]

Wow, there's some incredible bias coming through here (so I'll just add mine ). Seeing as these incidents are brought up, here's a couple of thoughts.

1. Goddard made 'incidental' contact to the head, but most of the contact was to the body. He 'lined him up' from 4-5m away, but was tucked and executed a well-timed and co-ordinated bump.

MY VERDICT: Play on. REPORT: Reckless (caused impact), High Contact, Low Impact. Which results in 2 weeks before adjustments.

The penalty is too high for the action in this case. Under the current 'gradings' there is nothing that Goddard should be charged for.

2. Franklin made 'incidental' contact to Cousins head, with most of the contact to the body. Cousins attempted to 'step' Franklin's, but fumbled/slipped and veered into Franklin. Franklin was low and tucked, and Cousins essentially ran into him, leaning forward at the last moment as he tried to change direction.

MY VERDICT: Play on. REPORT: Negligent, High Contact, Medium Impact (Cousins concussed for a minute or so). Which results in 2 weeks before adjustments.

3. Lloyd. Attacked the contest of the square, Sewell had his head down to collect the ball, Lloyd turned and applied a forceful hip and shoulder to Sewell's face.

MY VERDICT: 4+ Weeks. REPORT: Intentional, High Contact, High Impact (Broken Jaw and eye-socket). I think that's actually 6 weeks.

================

Goddard and Franklin shouldn't have gone - and if the MRP treat all incidents like that in future then I'll be happy (it just adds another line to the Anti-Hawthorn conspiracy).

If you cause the contact to be high, either by hitting a player with his head allready down, or by leaving the ground - you are at fault. If the player you hit causes the hit to be high (either by ducking, losing footing, diving at your knee, etc) - then the incident should be treated as if it was body contact (which invariably means nothing).

The MRP got it wrong with Franklin, I think 99% of people understand that.

They pretty much got it right with Lloyd.

They got it right with Goddard.

They pretty much got it right with Judd (personally, worse than Lloyd due to intent).

Thats a great unbiased post...if of course you rewrite history and somehow make Goddard contact his head...sorry all I am hearing is waaawaaawaaawaaWAAAAA!